Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[smaneck]

IMuslims cannot even produce sound evidence that Abraham even ever SET FOOT in Mecca, much less to repair this pagan temple found there, and is today venerated by thousands of misled muslims.
Dan.

And Christians and Jews cannot even produce sound evidence that Abraham ever existed.

In any case, Abraham is not supposed to have repaired this Kaaba, he is supposed to have built it.

[beanfarmer]

on what basis do you make that accusation?

On the basis of your refusal to deal with any passage that indicates Jesus is God like john 3.

nobody disputes that "Early christians", generations after Jesus (only 1 generation in this case) considered Jesus "a god".

The 1st century Christians believed Jesus was not a god but the only God and some of them were actually from the same generation as Jesus and the disciples because we are talking about 17 years after the crucifiction.

What error? You should keep in mind that Quran uses the word gospel to refers to Jesus's gospel, not books with the name "gospel" in their title... Just like the books of the bible

Let's look at the verse in question. 7:157 (Asad) those who shall follow the [last] Apostle, the unlettered Prophet whom they shall find described in the Torah that is with them, and [later on] in the gospel:

If "waalinjeele" is the word they translated Gospel then I think Injeel is a part of that word and smaneck says that is arabic for the New Testament. So either barnasha or smaneck is wrong. Do either of you know arabic?

That would make 7;157 wrong because Muhammad is not in the New Testament. If barnasha is right where are the Gospels that Muhammad was in and why does Muhammad refer to christians in so many other of the verses where Gospel occures if it is not the Gospel as the New Testament?

Let's look at some more obvious ones the likes of which you will not find in the Bible. 18:86: “Till, when he (the traveller Zul-qarnain) reached the setting-place of the Sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring…”

It may look like the sun is setting in water but it is hundreds of millions of miles away.

[beanfarmer]

im sure its possible, but how would i know those were not separate terms written on the wall? could Mr. Loffreda, a Christian, have interpreted it that way?

How do you know it is not?

[smaneck]

How do you know it is not?

Given the fact that other excavators insisted the graffiti was unreadable, there is no reason to think it said what Loffreda reported.

[barnasha]

On the basis of your refusal to deal with any passage that indicates Jesus is God like john 3.

i dont understand your reasoning. furthermore, john 3 talks about Jesus as the son of God, doesn't it?

The 1st century Christians believed Jesus was not a god but the only God and some of them were actually from the same generation as Jesus and the disciples because we are talking about 17 years after the crucifiction.



Let's look at the verse in question. 7:157 (Asad) those who shall follow the [last] Apostle, the unlettered Prophet whom they shall find described in the Torah that is with them, and [later on] in the gospel:

If "waalinjeele" is the word they translated Gospel then I think Injeel is a part of that word and smaneck says that is arabic for the New Testament. So either barnasha or smaneck is wrong. Do either of you know arabic?

injeel = evangelion = gospel.

some say it means new testament but that's really just one intepretation. better to stick to the correct meaning of the arabic word and just say 'gospel', i.e. the gospel of Jesus.

That would make 7;157 wrong because Muhammad is not in the New Testament. If barnasha is right where are the Gospels that Muhammad was in and why does Muhammad refer to christians in so many other of the verses where Gospel occures if it is not the Gospel as the New Testament?

Let's look at some more obvious ones the likes of which you will not find in the Bible. 18:86: “Till, when he (the traveller Zul-qarnain) reached the setting-place of the Sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring…”

It may look like the sun is setting in water but it is hundreds of millions of miles away.

more 'find apparent inconsistencies in Quran' sniping...
what's your goal?

[beanfarmer]

Given the fact that other excavators insisted the graffiti was unreadable, there is no reason to think it said what Loffreda reported.

i guess it's a matter of who you want to believe. Did they say all of the graffiti was unreadable? What is your source?

[beanfarmer]

i dont understand your reasoning. furthermore, john 3 talks about Jesus as the son of God, doesn't it?

as posted at least 2 times before to you which you appairently did not read, except for monogenes which you and smaneck said mean unique inspite of the etymology and usage and the definition which all said only offspring which you did not respond to. Here is what you ignored.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you. All of which you ignored promting my accusation of you ignoring parts of the New Testament that did not agree with Islam and Dan's accusation that you cherry pick.

injeel = evangelion = gospel. some say it means new testament but that's really just one intepretation. better to stick to the correct meaning of the arabic word and just say 'gospel', i.e. the gospel of Jesus.

So you are going to stick with the explaination that there is an other Gospel so the New Testament is not referred to here. Smaneck you once complimented me on my honesty when I corrected Dan on a point and I could use a little help here so I don't have to go into a long explaination of why Injeel does refer to the New Testament. I know there is an unwritten rule that Muslims will not side with an infidel in a argument when it is against another Muslim but you have already picked a side in this one.

more 'find apparent inconsistencies in Quran' sniping...
what's your goal?

My goal is to prove by those errors that Muhammad was making it up and it was not divine revelation.

[barnasha]

as posted at least 2 times before to you which you appairently did not read, except for monogenes which you and smaneck said mean unique inspite of the etymology and usage and the definition which all said only offspring which you did not respond to. Here is what you ignored.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you. All of which you ignored promting my accusation of you ignoring parts of the New Testament that did not agree with Islam and Dan's accusation that you cherry pick.

well, you seem to ignore what greek scholars said and stick with the "Christian mistranslation" of 'monogenes'...

but it doesn't really matter, there are other explicitly detailed references in the bible to others being the "son of God", including the audience of Psalms, i.e. everyone.

(furthermore, if one studies hebrew he will know that 'son of X' does not imply a biological or even filial relationship.)


These indisputable facts place your view in extreme doubt at best, when one works solely with the unfiltered facts. Your view so far only has merit in that is the orthodox Christian view, which is not a basis for sound reasoning. If you can explain all of the verses which either do not imply what you want to infer from the texts, or explicitly contradict them, you may have a good ground for forming a strong argument.

So you are going to stick with the explaination that there is an other Gospel so the New Testament is not referred to here. Smaneck you once complimented me on my honesty when I corrected Dan on a point and I could use a little help here so I don't have to go into a long explaination of why Injeel does refer to the New Testament. I know there is an unwritten rule that Muslims will not side with an infidel in a argument when it is against another Muslim but you have already picked a side in this one.

The gospel of Jesus is not the new testament. (Have a read over the term 'gospel' and its various applications if you don't know what I mean by that.)

My goal is to prove by those errors that Muhammad was making it up and it was not divine revelation.

If you achieve that, what will it gain you?

[smaneck]

I know there is an unwritten rule that Muslims will not side with an infidel in a argument when it is against another Muslim but you have already picked a side in this one.

I'm not a Muslim and so far Barmasha has not identified himself as a Muslim, but I observe he tends to lean towards a mystical approach to Islam. As to the meaning of Injeel, I don't think it is wrong to say it refers to the message of Jesus or that it refers to the NT as a whole. I don't think Muhammad is interested in the Christian debate regarding the inerrancy of scripture, however.

My goal is to prove by those errors that Muhammad was making it up and it was not divine revelation.

And I think you are missing the point as to the nature of revelation. The New Testament makes all kinds of errors in regards to misinterpreting and misrepresenting verses in the Old Testament. I would not say that this negates the fact that it contains genuine revelation.

[barnasha]

I know there is an unwritten rule that Muslims will not side with an infidel in a argument when it is against another Muslim but you have already picked a side in this one.

I'm not a Muslim and so far Barmasha has not identified himself as a Muslim, but I observe he tends to lean towards a mystical approach to Islam. As to the meaning of Injeel, I don't think it is wrong to say it refers to the message of Jesus or that it refers to the NT as a whole. I don't think Muhammad is interested in the Christian debate regarding the inerrancy of scripture, however.

only people with worldly orientation think that way.

those focused on the heavenly matters don't look at cultural identification.

Islam was always mystical - it only become less mystical as it fossilized into a worldly culture. and that non-worldly culture is not specific to one religion (true islam per bible and quran)

And I think you are missing the point as to the nature of revelation. The New Testament makes all kinds of errors in regards to misinterpreting and misrepresenting verses in the Old Testament. I would not say that this negates the fact that it contains genuine revelation.

agreed

[smaneck]

Islam was always mystical - it only become less mystical as it fossilized into a worldly culture. and that non-worldly culture is not specific to one religion (true islam per bible and quran)

I'm not sure I would agree with you there, Barmasha. Islam has always been focused on community, not simply mystical matters. It is no accident that the Muslim calendar begins with the founding of the first Muslim community in Medina.

[barnasha]

I'm not sure I would agree with you there, Barmasha. Islam has always been focused on community, not simply mystical matters. It is no accident that the Muslim calendar begins with the founding of the first Muslim community in Medina.

well, this may be one of the few times in this massive thread that a constructive argument occurs!

5 pillars of islam: testifying, daily contact prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage

these are personal and spiritual things. even serving your community by giving charity is mystical because anything dealing with the realm of the divine is necessarily mystical. serving your brother is itself a form of worship...

actually zakah means something like 'purifying' - the word for charity is 'sadaqah'

contact prayer is central to Islam (is supposed to happen at least 5 times a day) and is a mystical practice.

[Dan Zebiri]

Doesn't matter at all, smaneck! The quran which claims to be kalamullah - the so-called 'word of Allah/God, claims that Abraham had 'set foot in Mecca' to do that kind of thing.

Which contradicts history flatly. Thus, this quranic claim can only be merely myth and sheer superstition, and nothing else.

Today, all muslims are required to circumambulate this black stone of a kaaba as an act of subservience to Allah. And this is all based on a mere superstition - which has become institutionalised by Muhammad and his 'sunna'.

THATs the greatest tragedy for muslims as they are just BLINDLY following a baseless superstition imposed upon them.

Dan.

And Christians and Jews cannot even produce sound evidence that Abraham ever existed.

In any case, Abraham is not supposed to have repaired this Kaaba, he is supposed to have built it.

[beanfarmer]

well, you seem to ignore what greek scholars said and stick with the "Christian mistranslation" of 'monogenes'...but it doesn't really matter, there are other explicitly detailed references in the bible to others being the "son of God", including the audience of Psalms, i.e. everyone. (furthermore, if one studies hebrew he will know that 'son of X' does not imply a biological or even filial relationship.)

What greek scholars? I studied under greek scholars and know many and they all say what I said. Here is one that is a friend of mine who studied greek as an undergraduate and as a postgraduate. Here is what he said when I asked him what monogenes meant.

Monogenees and gennao are indeed related (as leaves on the same branchlet are related) because they are derived from the same root GEN, meaning "beget, become." Monogenees is made up of monos, meaning "only, alone," plus genos, meaning "family, race, nation, people, kind," or monos plus ginomai, meaning "become, be; happen, take place, arise; come into being, be born, etc." Whichever it is, both genos and ginomai are derived from GEN; and gennao, meaning "be father of; bear, give birth to" (in the passive it means "be born; lead to, cause"), is also derived from GEN.

On the root level, then, monogenees is monos + GEN and gennao is GEN alone. The prefix obviously makes a difference for the basic meaning of genos / ginomai. So while the root meanings of genos / ginomai and gennao are the same, because the same root GEN underlies these forms, the meanings of mono-genees (genos / ginomai) and gennao are not interchangeable. (This may be because the idea of root forms comes from inferring morphemes that do not exist on the basis of word forms that do exist in order to explain the evolution of the existing word forms. Now if you're looking for a morphological history of monogenees and gennao, I’m afraid you'll have to wait even longer for that.)

The basic English meaning of the verb gennao is not "only begotten." The basic meaning of the verb gennao is "be father of; bear, give birth to" (pass. "be born; lead to, cause"). And the basic meaning of the adjective monogenees is "only, unique, only-begotten" (possibly "one of a kind"). But the contexts in which monogenees and gennao are found will have the final word on their specific meaning(s).

In the particular contexts of John 3:16 and Heb 1:5, the meanings of monogenees and gennao are very close (as close at least as an adjective can be to a verb, which is very close indeed if we consider the function of the Greek participle and the verbal idea underlying the adjective monogenees) because both John and the author of Hebrews are emphasizing the unique relationship Jesus has with God the Father. John states in John 3:16 that God's love for the world is such that He gave the only begotten Son (ton whyon ton monogenee). John 3:18 clarifies the point that “the only begotten Son” is also “the only Son of God” (tou monogenous whyou tou theou). And the author of Hebrews states concerning Jesus as the Davidic Messiah that God said, "You are my Son (whyos mou ei su); today I have fathered / begotten you (ego seemeron gegenneeka se)" (Ps 2:7).

In addition to the quotations themselves, the rhetorical question introducing the series of quotations of Heb 1:5-13 as well as the linking phrases connecting the quotations also emphasize Jesus’ superiority to the angels and thus His unique relationship to God the Father:

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Ps 2:7’? Or again, ‘2 Sam 7:14’? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Deut 32:43.’ Of the angels He says, ‘Ps 104:4.’ But of the Son He says ‘Ps 45:6,7.’ And, ‘Ps 102:25-27.’ And to which of the angels has he ever said, ‘Ps 110:1’?”

Since the context in both cases concerns the vastly unique relationship Jesus enjoys with God, therefore, the noun monogenees and the verb gennao function almost synonymously expounding this point in John 3:16 and Heb 1:5.

The difference of the word forms may be merely owing to the difference of the speaker and the point of view in each case. In John 3:16, Jesus refers to the Son in the 3rd person; while in Heb 1:5 God is speaking and refers to the Son in the 2nd person.

It might also be pointed out that of course the Hebrew’s author is quoting Ps 2:7 and follows the LXX in his retention of gegenneeka (from gennao). The Greek phrase “ego seemeron gegenneeka se” is used to translate the Hebrew phrase “ani hayom yelidtikha” (“I myself this day have begotten you”). Thus gennao is used to translate the Hebrew yld as was frequently the case throughout the LXX.

(At the risk of sounding like a douche:) While it is at the root level that the trees of form and meaning are the same, as we move up to the word leaves themselves we have to depend more and more on the context of the passage where each word occurs in order to determine its meaning for that context. Context is king and words are his servants, and he and his servants lord it over the trees of form and meaning (to mix metaphors and sound like a complete douche bag). On the other hand, we also gather the general meanings of words from the majority way they are used in the contexts in which they occur (even douche-ier). So in a way, we arrive at a basic translation on the basis of the general meanings of words, which are based on the majority way in which they are used in their various contexts, and then we finely tune the meaning for each word on the basis of individual contexts. Context gives us meaning; meaning gives us context; context gives us meaning. Is it going too far to say the egg or the chicken came first?

The gospel of Jesus is not the new testament. (Have a read over the term 'gospel' and its various applications if you don't know what I mean by that.)

What is it then? Some book we no longer have or the gnostics or the passages about Jesus in the Qu'ran? Let's look at the ayats in the Qu'ran where Injeel or Gospel to see what the general meaning seems to be.

# 3:65 (Asad) O FOLLOWERS of earlier revelation! Why do you argue about Abraham, [51] seeing that the Torah and the gospel were not revealed till [long] after him? Will you not, then, use your reason?

Who were the followers of early revelation but the Jews and christians and what other revelation could there be but the Old Testament and New Testament? Does Muhammad ever refer to the gnostics? It can not be what is mentioned in the Qu'ran and Hadiths because it says earlier revelation.

# 4:171 (Asad) O FOLLOWERS of the gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.

Who are the followers of the Gospel? Are they not Christians? Christians read the New Testament so the New Testament is the Gospel he was referring to and as if to put the final blow to your theory it brings up the trinity so there can be no doubt he is talking about orthidox christians and what they read is the Bible so the Gospel in the Qu'ran is at least the Gospels of the New Testament and probably the entire New Testament.

# 5:68 (Asad) Say: "O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs -unless you [truly] observe the Torah and the gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer!" [85] Yet all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee [O Prophet] by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their denial of the truth. But sorrow not over people who deny the truth:

Can there be any doubt that Torah and Gospel refer to the Bible in this ayat? So we have another obvious error because Muhammad is not in the Bible.

If you achieve that, what will it gain you?

If I prove Muhammad was making it up as he went along I will have been submitting to God by striking a blow for truth and planting a seed of doubt that someone you know may water that will bring you to repent and add another soul to the kingdom of God.

[beanfarmer]

And I think you are missing the point as to the nature of revelation. The New Testament makes all kinds of errors in regards to misinterpreting and misrepresenting verses in the Old Testament. I would not say that this negates the fact that it contains genuine revelation.

I admit for the most part the allagorical interpretation of Old Testament passages by the New Testament writers is problematic. But I would not call them errors. At least on the level as the sun setting in water or walking to the end of the earth and finding a people with out shelter. Or bones formed before flesh in the embryo or earth made before heavens and I could find more if you like. Thank you for admitting the Gospel refers to the New Testament but that reminds me of another one Muhammad not being in the Gospel.


Dr. Forrel, my old professor at the U of I where I took his theology of luther class, believed the Bible contained errors. Yet he believed in the virgin birth because the Bible said so. He believed in salvation by grace through faith because it was in the Bible. I could not come up with anything in the Bible that he did not believe. Yet he insisted that the Bible had errors. I think what was going on was, who was he to decide where they were. Indeed, who was anybody to decide? So you might as well take everything as true.

We are all betting our lives both here and in eternity on which religion is right. Are you and barnasha willing to bet on one who's revelation contains so many blatent errors when there is one that doesn't? I know you're not a Muslim smaneck but when you conscider the Qu'ran with all of its errors and who knows what other falty revelations are in the bhagavad dita or zoraster which you also borrow from. If I were betting my life on something and we all ultilmately are, I would not bet on a revelation that says the sun sets in water or the embryo grows bones before muscle or skin. I would rather bet on the one that uses Jewish allagorical interpretation that BTW was common among the Jews of the 1st century and the accepted way to do it.